Support NeoGAF

[Paragon]

It is better than being permanently exclusive, but it's a shitty anti-consumer practice.
Sony's gag-orders make it even worse. They did not consider the PC to be a threat at the beginning of this generation, and have since realized that it was a mistake.

I've said it before, but this has the potential to do real harm to the PC in particular.
Some of these games are just dropped on Steam out of the blue with no marketing at all, and have completely bombed as a result.
People are not going to pay full price for a game that's been out for a year, and without marketing or word of mouth behind it, a lot of people don't even know the game is out or that it's a big deal.
There's often very little if any post-release support, since the developers have often moved on from that project a long time ago.
In future, a publisher/developer might look at poor sales on PC without that context, and just decide not to release the game on that platform at all next time.

People need to start realizing that platform exclusives do nothing to benefit them as a consumer.
It only really only benefits the platform holder, and maybe helps mitigate some risk for the publisher/developer while also cutting short the game's sales potential.
It hurts game preservation, and means that we're stuck with worse versions of these games.

 

[Fbh]

They are, for me, pointless and annoying.
I'm not going to buy another console because of a timed exclusive.


Unlike full third party exclusives like Bayonetta 2 or Bloodborne where a console maker actually pays for the full development of the game. Here it's literally the console maker just paying to keep the game for other systems for a time which is shitty.

 

[shimon]

Just tell us the ports exist instead of pretending like they don't then just announcing them a month before release

That will not happen bc if they did that some people would wait for the port instead of maybe buying a console now to play the game.

 

[Inotti]

I don’t mind waiting to be honest. If the game is not out on a platform I want to play it on I just don’t buy it. If devs get more money out of their game with timed exclusives... well good for them I guess.

 

[Rosol]

The biggest problem is when they pretend that it's a full exclusive. Just let the consumers know the specifics of the deal - so they don't get manipulated in their purchasing decisions.

 

[120v]

i used to be 'whatever' on the issue but with VR it kind of touched a nerve. as a PCVR user i'd love to delve into skyrim VR over the holiday but no go. still holding off on RE7 because of this yearlong exclusive... and still not sure whether i'm safe picking the game up now or having to buy a separate version later

but it's just the reality. 6-12 month waits aren't so bad when you have shitloads of other stuff to play so ultimately it's not a huge deal

 

[TheLegendaryN]

Pretty pointless. Nobody buys a console for the timed exclusives. They only really serve as playground bragging rights and to inconvenience your future audience/market.

Lots of people switched from Xbox 360 to PS4 instead of Xbox One in order to play the DLC of Call of Duty a month early tho. Marketing exclusivity deals on FIFA and Destiny really helped Sony selling systems too.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Not a fan but it is what it is I guess.

I'm okay with the situations where a first party funds a game for prestige that otherwise doesn't make sense like Nintendo with Bayo 2 or Sony with Street Fighter V.

 

[SafeinSound]

Don't care. I can wait.

 

[Luminaire]

I am fine with it IF the game is not already announced for other platforms/talked about on other platforms prior to exclusivity. If a game is announced for XB1 and there was no prior mention of it for PS4 or Switch, I don't see an issue if they release for PS4 or Switch a year later. If Cuphead came to PS4 and Switch after a year, that would be A-Ok as they were not talked about, announced, or discussed prior. I would see it as the developer fulfilling their contractual agreements and getting support from the platform holder such as marketing, engine, and development support.

However, if a game is in development for other platforms and has been talked about / announced for those platforms, I find it is a really shitty practice to secure timed exclusivity at that point. All you're doing is delaying it for other people who were already expecting it due to dev talk/announcement. The Tomb Raider situation was one of the worst offenders of this. It was paying to actively prevent the game from releasing on PC and PS4 for X amount of time as they assumed people would buy an XB1 for it. Trying to extend the PUBG exclusivity when it's already been talked about for PS4 is also pretty shitty. That is a more weird situation though as I don't know if they're actively developing it for PS4 at this point.

Situations like SFV and Bayo 2 are different as the developers (to my knowledge) have stated the game would not have existed otherwise.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

I love it. Gives devs extra time (opposed to creating for multiple systems at once) to fully focus their game to run and look better for one system.

 

[Mivey]

I love it. Gives devs extra time (opposed to creating for multiple systems at once) to fully focus their game to run and look better for one system.

I kinda doubt that the PC version that has been "parked" for a year will get a lot of support. Considering how inadequate the post launch PC support is with Japanese devs, I wouldn't even be surprised if this contributes to not paying for patches.

So it doesn't do a lot of good for Sony, nobody buys console for timed exclusives, but it sure pisses on users of other platforms. #4theplayers

 

[Uno Venova]

It sucks,

But watching certain people directing their ire solely at Sony and complains about "getting away with it" and making no comments on the publisher just highlights how much skin they have in the console wars game.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Its ok when its for Nintendo but bad for other companies. e_e

 

[rokkerkory]

I don't like it, if it's multi-platform title, then release around same time is best for gamers.

 

[Paragon]

Nobody buys a console for the timed exclusives.

nobody buys console for timed exclusives

I'm not going to buy another console because of a timed exclusive.

This is why Sony's deals include gag-orders so that the developers cannot talk about the existence of other versions of the game, and why they are inconsistent with their "console exclusive" branding.
They want people to believe that it's a full-blown exclusive that you can only get on PlayStation.
This is not about giving something to PlayStation owners - it's about hurting other platforms as much as possible. If they "accidentally" list a game as a PlayStation exclusive, they're happy to let that misinformation spread.

I love it. Gives devs extra time (opposed to creating for multiple systems at once) to fully focus their game to run and look better for one system.

Going by what we see on SteamDB, that's not typical. The PC version is often finished and sitting there waiting for the deal to expire.
Developers are not actively working on it throughout that time period, they're working on other projects. This also means that post-release support is lackluster, since no-one has worked on that project for some time, and they're busy with something else.
Of course that's not always the case, if it's actually being released with new content, but it often is what happens.

It sucks,
But watching certain people directing their ire solely at Sony and complains about "getting away with it" and making no comments on the publisher just highlights how much skin they have in the console wars game.

Sony are the ones making most of these deals.
Microsoft's Play Anywhere program means that the games release day and date on Xbox and PC, instead of being exclusive to the Xbox - though there may be exclusivity to the Microsoft Store.
I think Rise of the Tomb Raider was the last game where they struck a deal for an Xbox exclusive rather than a console-exclusive, and that was back in 2015.
I'll admit that I did not follow it too closely, as I was not a fan of the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot, but my understanding was that they made it clear that it was a timed exclusive rather than issuing a gag-order like Sony does.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

I'd much prefer a 6 month cycle. I hate it when it goes beyond the year range.

 

[Battlechili]

http://nichegamer.com/2017/10/31/world-final-fantasy-heads-pc-november-21-2017/
Announced just a few days after the year passed since its PS4 release date.
Hmm

 

[Sosokrates]

It makes good business sence to do these deals when your own 1st party content is lacking in some way.

It does not bother me.its business.

 

[meerak]

I believe consumers should learn patience. Day 1 culture is not good.

These days, I am very poor. I have to wait more than a year regularly to play any game, it’s rarely a big deal. Yes, it can sting when we want something we can’t have, but there are so many games to play, I just look at it as an opportunity to play something else.

 

[jonscrambler]

it sucks, some of these deals cleary have gag orders when a different version is suddenly available in 6 months

 

[MadMod]

Most of the time im fine with it, well more understand it. People have to sell their consoles somehow, but the lack of Cuphead on Mac/PS4 has kiiled me.

 

[Niceguydan8]

Timed exclusives for full games don't bother me.

Timed exclusives within games bothers me a lot more, but it depends on how long they are exclusive for.

Getting a map pack a week/month early on a ps4 or whatever doesn't bother me a whole lot. Getting access to content a year before any other platforms do (looking at you Bungie) is a slap in the face to me, especially given how Destiny played out. The fact that that content became available pretty much after the point of which it was relevant was total bullshit in my opinion.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

I don't like it at all, but there are times when a company invests in a project and I think it's fair if not still frustrating. The difficult part is knowing when a company legitimately needed and received financial/technical/marketing help and when it is just an excuse.

EDIT: And the whole not telling consumers if it's a timed consumer is incredibly anti-consumer and utter bullshit. That needs to stop.

 

[Shifty1897]

Exclusivity deals hurt you unless your studio makes it with Sony.

 

[jonscrambler]

I am sick to death of posts like these. If you don't like GAF, there's the door.

if you are sick to death of these posts on GAF you can leave yourself

 

[Liliana Eileen]

http://nichegamer.com/2017/10/31/world-final-fantasy-heads-pc-november-21-2017/
Announced just a few days after the year passed since its PS4 release date.
Hmm

People will continue to ignore this, just like a ton of other games Sony did the same shit with.

 

[synce]

Don't mind it as long as teh games are half price and come bundled with all the stuff they cut from the original release. Otherwise the publishers can go fuck themselves

 

[EdgeXL]

I am not a fan of 1 year exclusivity deals but I can understand it in the case of a small developer who does not have a lot of resources and cannot work on multiple platforms at the same time. If memory serves, the developers of Rocket League were running low on money around the time of that game's release on PS4 and PC so I give them a pass.

When a major AAA developer does it then I think that is anti-consumer.

 

[Hellshy.]

Exclusivity deals hurt you unless your studio makes it with Sony.

Does it? Full exclusives sure but seems like some enjoy the extra money that makes the game less risky to develop.therr is a reason why the huge titles tend to not have these type deals.

 

[GametimeUK]

It's just business.

 

[g11]

It's bullshit especially in situations where Sony or Microsoft are doing it specifically to deprive others of a chance to play it. If you're going to buy an exclusive (timed or not), do it right and just fund the development of a game the way Sony did with Bloodborne or Microsoft did with Sunset Overdrive.

It's when deals like the Tomb Raider one are struck that piss me off. To my knowledge Nioh wasn't a deal like that but more similar to a Bloodborne/Demon's Souls situation but I honestly don't know for sure anymore.

It's a shitty trend no matter who does it.

 

[harmundo]

I don't really care, I can wait.

 

[firelogic]

Why do you think Sony/Microsoft pay to keep it from each other? They think of it as adding to the value proposition of purchasing their hardware.

It's a business and they'll do whatever makes people buy their product over another similar product. If they get a lot of timed exclusives, people will start to think, well I wanted that game, and that game, and that game too. I guess I'll buy this console over the other one since that one gets the games I want late.

Of course one game may not sway a lot of people, but if it starts piling up, it adds to the decision making process. Also optically, if one keeps getting games earlier than the other, it's seen as the more dominant one and people gravitate towards the "winner."

I don't have a problem with it because they're just games. I can either buy the other hardware or wait and play it some time down the line. It's a practice that's never going away because hardware companies need to differentiate themselves in any way they can.

 

[Atomski]

It's lame whoever does it.

 

[Bickle2]

Honestly, Six months will do it. That’s pretty much the limit of “I’ll buy your console to play this” factor, which is the only real point of exclusivity.

 

[Nitpicker_Red]

How many games even actually have the port ready on day 1?
More focus on one version pre-launch, more porting time, more money for the dev.
The only problems are marketing and hype timings, meaning people being unhappy not being able to buy now what they are advertised. Proof that advertising is powerful.

 

[dante_f]

For indies good (more money)
AAA bad